[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] accessibility caption proposal comments
On 05/06/06, Bruce D'Arcus <bruce.darcus@opendocument.us> wrote: > A "describedBy" attribute is exactly the sort of ground that we intend > to cover with metadata. It associates an object with a metadata > description. In this case, that description is just plain text, but in > other cases, it could be full metadata records (identified by uri). In > fact, one of our use cases involves automatically generating caption > from embedded (probably RDF) metadata descriptions. If we can leave aside the format of the description I can see a shared need here. We need to describe the image for a blind or partially sighted user, you for other reasons. I like the idea of markup within a description. Sufficient to allow a full description, rather than a brief caption? E.g. could you describe the Mona Lisa in one sentance... No don't answer that Bruce :-) > > <http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Intellectual_Property> > > >> My suggestion would instead be to use natural containment, and to add > > How do you see one as better than the other? > > OK, let's break apart two separate issues: association and semantics. > > On the second, my contention is that "caption" is an important semantic > structure, and so deserves its own element. To say something is > "describedBy" is -- per above -- rather vague. I'm sure we could argue that either way. Caption has fairly clear semantics to me, but my gut reaction is that it's a brief, rather than full description? So notwithstanding the > question of how this lines up with a broader metadata effort, I think > we need a standard way to say what kind of description it is. I'll ride with that quite happily. > WRT to association, I think if we start down the path of using linking > to associate content with description, things could get really messy. > It's really a different design approach. > > For example, I mentioned that I didn't like the way sectioning > currently works. Ideally, we'd have proper sectional structures a la: > > <section> > <p>...</p> > </section> > > The standard way to include heading information for those is > containment; e.g. in XHTML 2.0, I'm convinced. Equally I'm pretty convinced that a flat structure (minimal or no nesting unless explicitly generated) should be supported. > Aside: the above could benefit accessibility, yes? Yes. > > If we ARE going to go down the road of using attributes to make this > association, then I think: > > a) we need to give it much more thought so that we adopt a consistent > approach to these problems > b) it needs to happen in conjunction with the metadata effort No real arguments. I'm willing to support a nested text equivalent to an image or drawing. Naming to be agreed on. Not sure I'd support RDF to mark up such a description. Simple inlines and some block (probably basic para class of markup) would seem natural to me? regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]